Steve Thompson wrote:
>
>
>Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
>
>>
>> Let's think of two totally generalized impedances, (R1 in series with
>> jX1) and (R2 in series with X2). In this context X1 and X2 can have
>> either sign.
>>
>> Now add series elements X1 and X2 to cancel both reactances out. We
>> now have resistive impedances R1 and R2, which can be matched with the
>> minimumQ solution using two elements in one of the Lnetwork
>> configurations.
>This is where I started  but you can always add a first element to take
>you to a pure resistance that's nearer your target than (say) R1 is.
>Then, the L match from the new resistance to target will have a lower Q
>than the one from R1 to target and the three elements give you lower Q
>than two.
>
>I think the train of thought can be valid where you can't choose
>whichever of the L match permutations is needed for minimum Q  that's
>the trap I fell in to.
That's a fair point. The more elements you add, the more possibilities
you have to synthesize a network that transforms the impedance in a
cascade of small steps. Then, as Peter points out, it begins to look a
lot like a filter... and disappears into a cloud of complex maths.
In practical terms, a very nice thing to do with a large Ttuner is the
mod suggested by G3LNP: fit a cam switch to each capacitor, so that
rotating it to maximum capacitance will short the cap completely. This
gives the user an instant choice between a Tnetwork, a stepup
Lnetwork or a stepdown Lnetwork. Tune for minimum smoke.

73 from Ian GM3SEK
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
